This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

In how many of those attacks did the president go missing and allow Americans to be abandoned? How many times has an American president done nothing while Americans were being murdered in an eight hour battle?

Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

Originally Posted by Ray410

Four Americans, dying, desperately called for help and the President, in effect, said "No, let them die." That is what he said, when he could have helped, could have saved their lives. There isn't an American combat soldier alive, past or present, that wouldn't have volunteered immediately for that mission. Gunships circling the embassy and firing into the attackers would have accomplished the goal. Those gunships, with brave American fighting men were available and ready to go.

That is why America's latest Medal of Honor winner, when asked to attend Obama's inauguration and sit with the President's wife, said NO. Obama is not one of us, he does not have America's historical warrior spirit. He has no natural feel for fighting men, no natural feel for duty, honor, country and courage.

This is such terrible garbage! That's not even close to what happened. The embassy, without warning, was attacked by 150 militants and they killed 4 Americans. The report (as mentioned several times) went into detail about what could have prevented the killings, but didn't mention anything about Obama failing to jump into his helicopter and unleash his Obamamaster Rifle which shoots lightning and lasers.

This was an attack on our embassy and a tragedy. The tragedy isn't that the administration tried to blame a youtube video. That's the coverup we're talking about. Nobody (except those who contradict the report and all other evidence) says that the White House chose to let those men die. It's like Watergate, only if the person breaking into the hotel were a 16 year old kid, completely unassociated with the Nixon administration, looking for vicodin.

Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

Originally Posted by Misterveritis

In how many of those attacks did the president go missing and allow Americans to be abandoned? How many times has an American president done nothing while Americans were being murdered in an eight hour battle?

You think the president is like argus panoptes, the mythical Greek monster with a thousand eyes who can see everything.

Why don't we just agree, when it comes to the Obama administration, it's SNAFU.

SNAFU in the sense that it was a logistical and bureaucratic issue; one that the United States has always suffered from. We had the same problems before and during Pearl Harbor and 9/11/01. People also need to face reality and realize that the CIA is practically worthless. Its little more than a landing pad for information from foreign intelligence agencies. Nothing that comes out of these witch hunts will address that so nothing that happens here will prevent another incident. The simple truth of the matter is that we have always sucked at predicting events so the important thing is to focus on better response to them. The inane way our national defense is run was exposed, once again, on 9/11/01.

Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

Originally Posted by Misterveritis

In how many of those attacks did the president go missing and allow Americans to be abandoned? How many times has an American president done nothing while Americans were being murdered in an eight hour battle?

Which American Presidents have been directly involved in giving specific orders in battles? Probably nobody since George Washington and that was before he became President so, nobody. Thats what the Secretary of Defense is for. The President is briefed on a situation, given a recommendation, provides approval for a general action, and the Secretary of Defense deals with the minutia. Presidents are there to rubber stamp ideas so that military commanders who know what they're talking about get things done.

Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

Originally Posted by Mustachio

This is such terrible garbage! That's not even close to what happened. The embassy, without warning, was attacked by 150 militants and they killed 4 Americans. The report (as mentioned several times) went into detail about what could have prevented the killings, but didn't mention anything about Obama failing to jump into his helicopter and unleash his Obamamaster Rifle which shoots lightning and lasers.

This was an attack on our embassy and a tragedy. The tragedy isn't that the administration tried to blame a youtube video. That's the cover up we're talking about. Nobody (except those who contradict the report and all other evidence) says that the White House chose to let those men die. It's like Watergate, only if the person breaking into the hotel were a 16 year old kid, completely unassociated with the Nixon administration, looking for vicodin.

You got it mostly right Mustachio. There was a cover up at the beginning by the Obama administration, they wanted the American people to think it was all about a video because they didn't want the American people to know the truth that unlike what Obama has been saying that Al Qaeda was on the run, that Al Qaeda was decimated, the truth is, Obama was lying on the campaign trail.

If it was all about a video, you don't send in the Marines. But if it was Al Qaeda you do send in the Marines. If Obama would have acted, it would have compromised his reelection campaign. His platform was, Bin Laden was dead, the auto industry is alive and Al Qaeda was on the run.

We have to assume that at least 52 % of Americans are unaware that Obama's Middle East foreign policies have been a complete failure. Compared to four years ago, the entire Middle East is a basket case today. The Arab Spring that Obama supported doesn't smell like spring time in the Middle East. During the past four years of the Obama administration, Al Qaeda has spread it's base of operations all across the Middle East and North Africa not to mention other radical Islamist factions and the Muslim Brotherhood has gained significant power during the Obama administration.

Do you think if more Americans were more informed, that Obama would have been given a second chance ?

Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

Originally Posted by APACHERAT

You got it mostly right Mustachio. There was a cover up at the beginning by the Obama administration, they wanted the American people to think it was all about a video because they didn't want the American people to know the truth that unlike what Obama has been saying that Al Qaeda was on the run, that Al Qaeda was decimated, the truth is, Obama was lying on the campaign trail.

If it was all about a video, you don't send in the Marines. But if it was Al Qaeda you do send in the Marines. If Obama would have acted, it would have compromised his reelection campaign. His platform was, Bin Laden was dead, the auto industry is alive and Al Qaeda was on the run.

We have to assume that at least 52 % of Americans are unaware that Obama's Middle East foreign policies have been a complete failure. Compared to four years ago, the entire Middle East is a basket case today. The Arab Spring that Obama supported doesn't smell like spring time in the Middle East. During the past four years of the Obama administration, Al Qaeda has spread it's base of operations all across the Middle East and North Africa not to mention other radical Islamist factions and the Muslim Brotherhood has gained significant power during the Obama administration.

Do you think if more Americans were more informed, that Obama would have been given a second chance ?

Apache, since when has al qeada resorted to using armed militas? Aren't suicide bombings and bombs been their trademark?

Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

Originally Posted by Napoleon

Which American Presidents have been directly involved in giving specific orders in battles? Probably nobody since George Washington and that was before he became President so, nobody. Thats what the Secretary of Defense is for. The President is briefed on a situation, given a recommendation, provides approval for a general action, and the Secretary of Defense deals with the minutia. Presidents are there to rubber stamp ideas so that military commanders who know what they're talking about get things done.

You got it wrong my liberal friend. One of the biggest criticisms of the Vietnam war was LBJ micromanaging the war. Picking out the daily bombing missions and putting other restrictions upon our troops.

And it's not the job of the Secretary of Defense to decide what tactics are suppose to be used on the battlefields or even the strategy. That's the job of the Generals and Admirals.

The purpose of the Secretary of Defense and the other service secretaries is civilian oversight of the military, not telling the military how to fight and win battles or wars.

Re: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

Originally Posted by APACHERAT

You got it wrong my liberal friend. One of the biggest criticisms of the Vietnam war was LBJ micromanaging the war. Picking out the daily bombing missions and putting other restrictions upon our troops.

Ok, so 1 out of 44.

Originally Posted by APACHERAT

There was a cover up at the beginning by the Obama administration, they wanted the American people to think it was all about a video because they didn't want the American people to know the truth that unlike what Obama has been saying that Al Qaeda was on the run, that Al Qaeda was decimated, the truth is, Obama was lying on the campaign trail.

What is with peoples' obsession with conspiracy theories? The President spoke based on the information made available to him and blaming him for the Arab Spring is just absurd. Our chess pieces in the Middle East fell and it is never a good idea to be on the wrong side of a revolution. If anything is to be learned from Iraq and the Arab Spring its that the United States shouldn't install and support tyrants in the first place. In terms of Al Qaeda, it will never be decimated and no one should clutch their pearls in shock at the idea of a politician lying on the campaign trail. Romney told quite a few whoppers himself.